Search Results For: Sudhakar Reddy (AM)


Mahavir Jhanwar vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks: If the assessee has filed evidences for (a) purchase of shares, (b) payment by account payee cheque, (c) balance sheet disclosing investments, (d) demat statement (e) evidence of sale of shares through stock exchange, (e) bank statement reflecting sale receipts, (f) brokers ledger, (g) Contract Notes etc, the gains cannot be treated as bogus on human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises (All contra judgements distinguished)

The proposition of law laid down in these case laws by the Jurisdictional High Court as well as by the ITAT Kolkata on these issues are in favour of the assessee. These are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not leaving his ground, could not controvert the claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue in question is covered by the above cited decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and the ITAT. I am bound to follow the same

Devansh Exports vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 92: The information given by DIT (Inv) can only be a basis to ignite/ trigger "reason to suspect". The AO has to carry out further examination to convert the "reason to suspect" into "reason to believe". If the AO acts on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind, the reopening is void (All judgements considered)

Allegations leveled by DIT (Inv.) can only raise suspicion in the mind of the AO which is not the sufficient/requirement of law for reopening of assessment. The ‘reasons to believe’ is not synonymous to ‘reason to suspect’. ‘Reason to suspect’ based on an information can trigger an enquiry to find out whether there is any substance or material to substantiate that there is merit in the information adduced by the DIT(Inv.) and thereafter the AO has to take an independent decision to re-open or not. And the AO should not act on dictate of any other authority like in this case DIT(Inv.) because then it would be borrowed satisfaction

Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: In order to treat the capital gains from penny stocks as bogus, the Dept has to show that there is a scam and that the assessee is part of the scam. The chain of events and the live link of the assesee's action giving her involvement in the scam should be established. The Dept cannot rely on alleged modus operandi & human behavior and disregard the evidence produced by the assessee . All imp judgements referred

The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations, should guide the authorities in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim in genuine or not. An alleged scam might have taken place on LTCG etc. But it has to be established in each case, by the party alleging so, that this assessee in question was part of this scam. The chain of events and the live link of the assesee’s action giving her involvement in the scam should be established

DCIT vs. Inventaa Industries Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench)

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 14, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(1A) Agricultural income: Mushroom is not a ‘vegetable’, ‘plant’, 'fruit' or ‘animal’ but is a ‘fungus’. Anything which is produced by performing basic operations on the soil is an "agricultural product" and the income therefrom is "agricultural income". The nature of the product and the fact that it is not a ‘plant’, ‘flower’, ‘vegetable’ or ‘fruit’ is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is whether the production is by performing some basic operations on the soil (All judgements considered)

It is clear that we cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life only. The only condition is that the “product” in question should be raised on the land by performing some basic operations. Mushroom produced by the assessee is a product. This product is raised on land/soil, by performing certain basic operation. The product draws nourishment from the soil and is naturally grown, by such operation on soil which require expenditure of “human skill and labour”. The product so raised has utility for consumption, trade and commerce and hence would qualify as an “agricultural product” the sale of which gives rise to agricultural income.

Baniara Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C is a deeming provision and applies only to the transfer of land or building. It does not apply to the transfer of "booking rights" and to right to purchase flats in a building

It is essential that for application of Sec. 50C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as “land or building or both” then section 50C will cease to apply. Booking advance cannot be equated with the capital asset and therefore section 50C cannot be invoked

Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: 31000% increase in value of shares over 2 years is highly suspicious but cannot take the place of evidence. The addition cannot be made based on generalizations. Evidence collected from third parties cannot be used against the assessee without giving him a copy & an opportunity to rebut the same

The AO further relies on the shop increase of 31000% of the value of shares over the period of 2 years. Though this is highly suspicious, it cannot take the place of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that suspicion however strong cannot be the basis for making an addition. The evidence produced by the assessee listed above proves his case and the AO could not controvert the same by bringing on record any evidence. The evidence said to have been collected by the DIT (INV.), Kolkata and the report is not produced before this Bench

Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 47(iv) Transfer/ Capital Gains: The term 'subsidiary company’ is not defined under the Income-tax Act and so will have to be given the meaning in s. 4(1)(c) of the Companies Act. A subsidiary of a subsidiary (step-down subsidiary) is also a subsidiary of the parent. Consequently, transfers between the holding company and the step-down subsidiary are not "transfers" which can give rise to capital gains or loss

The transaction in question cannot be regarded as transfer in view of provisions of section 47(iv) of the Act, as it is a transfer of capital asset by a company to its subsidiary company and as a second step down 100% subsidiary company is also as subsidiary of the assessee company under the Companies’ Act 1956 as the term ‘subsidiary company’ has not been defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961

M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 8, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CBDT guidelines for scrutiny of cases: Law explained as to how the CBDT Guidelines for manual selection of cases for scrutiny have to be interpreted and whether CIT in granting approval is required to show application of mind and give reasons for his decision

The Criteria / Guidelines for Income tax Scrutiny dated 10th September 2011 authorize the Assessing Officer to select any return for scrutiny after recording the reasons and obtaining approval of the CCIT/CIT. The case under the category should be selected if, they are compelling the reasons and the case selected through CASS. These cases should be watched by CCIT / CIT in respect of the quality of assessment. In our view, the requirements of the guidelines have been met by the AO in this case. The term compelling reasons is a relative term and has to be viewed from the point of view of the AO

Aerens Developers and Engineers Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Compensation for breach of promise to provide land to the assessee is not compensation for loss of profits but is for injury caused to the profit making apparatus. Such compensation is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax

The injury was caused to the profit making apparatus as the land which was profit making apparatus for the assessee was not supplied by JMA Buildcom (P) Ltd. as per the agreement entered into between the assessee and associates, and JMA Buildcom (P) Ltd. Appreciating the same, compensation was awarded in the arbitration proceedings initiated against JMA Buildcom.(P) Ltd. In other words, the basis of award remained the lost profit due to non-supply of the land i.e. profit making apparatus and not on loss of profit. We thus find that the only inference can be drawn is that the compensation received by way of reward due to non-supply of land by JMA Buildcom (P) Ltd. under the agreement was capital receipt

Oxford Softech P.Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 7, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract penalty

The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous conditions attached, is a complicated affair. It is another matter that the assessing authorities have found that the claim is not admissible. Under these circumstances we hold that it cannot be said that this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Top